Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 23:24:56 -0700
From: auvenj@mailcity.com ("Jason Auvenshine")
Subject: [lpaz-Pima] Empirical evidence (was:  Re:  Observation)
To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com, lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com


A few days ago...

--- In lpaz-Pima@y..., "Kyle Bennett" <kylben@e...> wrote:
>

> --- In lpaz-Pima@y..., "Jason Auvenshine" <auvenj@l...> wrote:

> > In the case

> > of matching funds, the "welfare" causes the campaign to focus

> > fundraising efforts where they wouldn't otherwise (lots of small

> > contributions rather than a fewer number of larger contributions), it

> > has the moral hazard of attracting the "easy money" element to the

> > campaign, it diverts attention from other campaign strategies and

> > activities that might be tried, it takes up time and effort in the

> > process of conforming to matching funds requirement, and there is

> > potential for the _percieved_ hypocrisy of taking the funds while

> > complaining about them.

> 

> These are all legitimate dangers, and things that we need to be alert to in

> any cmapaign.  But this falls short of a convincing argument against taking

> matching funds entirely.

> 

> > The notion that these objections make

> > accepting the matching funds a long-term detriment rather than a

> > benefit is admittedly an opinion based upon imperfect information.

> 

> I think the answer to which side of the fence that the balance lies will be

> observed empirically.  The factors are too complex for an accurate

> risk/reward analasys ahead of time.  You may well be right that its not

> worth it.


In hopes of providing some enlightenment in a forum populated at least very largely with Libertarians (NOT "flaming from the rear" or "carping" in public as some have charged) I offer the following for consideration in regards to the matching funds issue.  As some have pointed out, Jonathan's (and PCLP's) current course is set and I have no doubt he'll see it through.

Having just explained the reasons why I believe that accepting matching funds is not _inherently_ evil, I'd like to provide a little evidence for why I think pursuing and accepting matching funds is nevertheless a suboptimal approach and I do not support it.

First off, let's be clear about the goals of the Hoffman campaign.  Running a serious campaign is admirable and all too rare in this party, and I'm glad Jonathan is stepping up and doing so.  Getting the message out is a worthy goal too, and despite the criticisms of some who AREN'T running campaigns I think Jonathan does a pretty good job of that in most areas.

However, _every time_ I hear strategy being discussed, the real impact everyone expects the Hoffman campaign will have a year from now, or two years from now, centers around one primary goal:  Libertarian voter registration for the retention of ballot status.  If Jonathan's campaign generates a lot of new registered Libertarians, I think most of us will consider it a success.  If it generates very few, we are likely to consider it a failure unless he does manage to pull off a win or at least a record percentage of the vote.

So I think that it's fair to ask what the impact of the matching funds may be on our ability to register Libertarian voters.  We're also all realistic enough to know that most of the registration will be done via paid registrars rather than volunteers.  To date, most of the focus has been on the many registrations the extr money from the matching funds will buy.  This is understandable...because it's so obvious that the matching funds WILL buy more registrations.  However, that analysis ignores the possibilities of what other approaches we might try for voter registration if we DIDN'T pursue matching funds.

For the sake of comparison, I have attached a spreadsheet which I received from the chairman of the Maricopa County Libertarian Party concerning their voter registration drive.  Their drive has very similar goals to our own drive, but their approach is radically different.  They pursued relatively few donors outside the context of a campaign, to directly fund a paid registration drive.  For those unable to open Excel spreadsheets, I'll summarize.  From only 8 donors so far, with essentially zero fundraising costs, they have pledges for $2325, of which $1450 has been paid and $875 pledged is still outstanding.  With the money they have received thus far, they have been able to purchase 1231 Libertarian registrations and have seen a net increase of 1615 Libertarian registrations.

A few interesting observations:
(1) Their cost per registration is far below what ours is projected to be.  Theirs is about $1.25 per registration, while I've heard we'll be paying upwards of $4-$5 each.  Why?  I'd like to know the answer to that question.  Perhaps they are scrimping on something important...or perhaps they've found a way to be more efficient.
(2) They are further along in their drive than we are in our drive, because they immediately put the money to work buying registrations rather than using it as "seed" to do more fundraising in an attempt to qualify for matching funds.
(3) Their approach does not have the risk of failing to qualify for matching funds.  How will our drive end up if Jonathan fails to qualify?
(4) The average contribution per donor is quite high.  A drive not associated with a campaign can legally pursue and accept contributions far larger than the legal limit for campaigns.
(5) Because of #4, the cost of raising that money is far lower...to the point of being nonexistant.  No mass mailings with 1% response rate.
(6) On the downside, I suspect there is a fairly low ceiling on the amount of money they can raise using this approach.  They're probably not going to raise $50K or $100K and make a huge splash.  The question is, will they raise enough to meet their registration goal and achieve ballot status by the deadline in October?  So far, it looks good.  They're well over half way there on the pleges, and about half way there on collecting the pledges and paying for the registrations.

Does this data constitute "proof" that taking matching funds is a bad strategy?  Certainly not.  But I believe it does offer some of the empirical evidence Kyle refers to, and bears some consideration and investigation for our future endeavors.

--Jason Auvenshine



Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpaz-pima-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/